Resolve Mouse Marker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent) by detailing return fields, ambiguous query error behavior with candidate list, and human-mouse symbol collision resolution. The case-insensitivity and MGI ID format acceptance are also disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with core purpose, and includes key details efficiently. Some sentences are dense but not overly verbose; it could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies return fields and covers edge cases (ambiguous symbols, ortholog collisions). It also explains the response_mode parameter. Given the tool's simplicity, it is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline. The description adds value by explaining input types for query, case-insensitivity, and example formats like 'MGI:98968'. For response_mode, it lists enum options and default, enriching understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it resolves mouse marker references to canonical MGI records, specifying three input types (mouse symbol, MGI ID, human ortholog). It distinguishes from siblings like get_marker and get_marker_ortholog by explicitly covering ortholog resolution and ambiguous handling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what inputs it accepts and what it returns, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_marker or search_markers, limiting guidance on exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.